Re: [PATCH v22 2/8] security: Add EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE and EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE securebits

[Jeff Xu]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 8:48 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 05:09:19PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > The new SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE, SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE, and
> > their *_LOCKED counterparts are designed to be set by processes setting
> > up an execution environment, such as a user session, a container, or a
> > security sandbox.  Unlike other securebits, these ones can be set by
> > unprivileged processes.  Like seccomp filters or Landlock domains, the
> > securebits are inherited across processes.
> >
> > When SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE is set, programs interpreting code should
> > control executable resources according to execveat(2) + AT_EXECVE_CHECK
> > (see previous commit).
> >
> > When SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE is set, a process should deny
> > execution of user interactive commands (which excludes executable
> > regular files).
> >
> > Being able to configure each of these securebits enables system
> > administrators or owner of image containers to gradually validate the
> > related changes and to identify potential issues (e.g. with interpreter
> > or audit logs).
> >
> > It should be noted that unlike other security bits, the
> > SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE and SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE bits are
> > dedicated to user space willing to restrict itself.  Because of that,
> > they only make sense in the context of a trusted environment (e.g.
> > sandbox, container, user session, full system) where the process
> > changing its behavior (according to these bits) and all its parent
> > processes are trusted.  Otherwise, any parent process could just execute
> > its own malicious code (interpreting a script or not), or even enforce a
> > seccomp filter to mask these bits.
> >
> > Such a secure environment can be achieved with an appropriate access
> > control (e.g. mount's noexec option, file access rights, LSM policy) and
> > an enlighten ld.so checking that libraries are allowed for execution
> > e.g., to protect against illegitimate use of LD_PRELOAD.
> >
> > Ptrace restrictions according to these securebits would not make sense
> > because of the processes' trust assumption.
> >
> > Scripts may need some changes to deal with untrusted data (e.g. stdin,
> > environment variables), but that is outside the scope of the kernel.
> >
> > See chromeOS's documentation about script execution control and the
> > related threat model:
> > https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-library/guides/security/noexec-shell-scripts/
> >
> > Cc: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241205160925.230119-3-mic@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > ---
> >
> > Changes since v21:
> > * Extend user documentation with exception regarding tailored execution
> >   environments (e.g. chromeOS's libc) as discussed with Jeff.
> >
> > Changes since v20:
> > * Move UAPI documentation to a dedicated RST file and format it.
> >
> > Changes since v19:
> > * Replace SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK and SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT with
> >   SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE and SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE:
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240710.eiKohpa4Phai@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> > * Remove the ptrace restrictions, suggested by Andy.
> > * Improve documentation according to the discussion with Jeff.
> >
> > New design since v18:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220104155024.48023-3-mic@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > ---
> >  Documentation/userspace-api/check_exec.rst | 107 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/uapi/linux/securebits.h            |  24 ++++-
> >  security/commoncap.c                       |  29 ++++--
> >  3 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/userspace-api/check_exec.rst b/Documentation/userspace-api/check_exec.rst
> > index 393dd7ca19c4..05dfe3b56f71 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/userspace-api/check_exec.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/userspace-api/check_exec.rst
> > @@ -5,6 +5,31 @@
> >  Executability check
> >  ===================
> >
> > +The ``AT_EXECVE_CHECK`` :manpage:`execveat(2)` flag, and the
> > +``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE`` and ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE`` securebits
> > +are intended for script interpreters and dynamic linkers to enforce a
> > +consistent execution security policy handled by the kernel.  See the
> > +`samples/check-exec/inc.c`_ example.
> > +
> > +Whether an interpreter should check these securebits or not depends on the
> > +security risk of running malicious scripts with respect to the execution
> > +environment, and whether the kernel can check if a script is trustworthy or
> > +not.  For instance, Python scripts running on a server can use arbitrary
> > +syscalls and access arbitrary files.  Such interpreters should then be
> > +enlighten to use these securebits and let users define their security policy.
> > +However, a JavaScript engine running in a web browser should already be
> > +sandboxed and then should not be able to harm the user's environment.
> > +
> > +Script interpreters or dynamic linkers built for tailored execution environments
> > +(e.g. hardened Linux distributions or hermetic container images) could use
> > +``AT_EXECVE_CHECK`` without checking the related securebits if backward
> > +compatibility is handled by something else (e.g. atomic update ensuring that
> > +all legitimate libraries are allowed to be executed).  It is then recommended
> > +for script interpreters and dynamic linkers to check the securebits at run time
> > +by default, but also to provide the ability for custom builds to behave like if
> > +``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE`` or ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE`` were always
> > +set to 1 (i.e. always enforce restrictions).
>
> Jeff, does this work for you?
>
Yes. Thanks for updating this section.


> I'll update the IMA patch with a last version but otherwise it should be
> good: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241210.Wie6ion7Aich@xxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> > +
> >  AT_EXECVE_CHECK
> >  ===============
> >
> > @@ -35,3 +60,85 @@ be executable, which also requires integrity guarantees.
> >  To avoid race conditions leading to time-of-check to time-of-use issues,
> >  ``AT_EXECVE_CHECK`` should be used with ``AT_EMPTY_PATH`` to check against a
> >  file descriptor instead of a path.
> > +
> > +SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE and SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE
> > +==========================================================
> > +
> > +When ``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE`` is set, a process should only interpret or
> > +execute a file if a call to :manpage:`execveat(2)` with the related file
> > +descriptor and the ``AT_EXECVE_CHECK`` flag succeed.
> > +
> > +This secure bit may be set by user session managers, service managers,
> > +container runtimes, sandboxer tools...  Except for test environments, the
> > +related ``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE_LOCKED`` bit should also be set.
> > +
> > +Programs should only enforce consistent restrictions according to the
> > +securebits but without relying on any other user-controlled configuration.
> > +Indeed, the use case for these securebits is to only trust executable code
> > +vetted by the system configuration (through the kernel), so we should be
> > +careful to not let untrusted users control this configuration.
> > +
> > +However, script interpreters may still use user configuration such as
> > +environment variables as long as it is not a way to disable the securebits
> > +checks.  For instance, the ``PATH`` and ``LD_PRELOAD`` variables can be set by
> > +a script's caller.  Changing these variables may lead to unintended code
> > +executions, but only from vetted executable programs, which is OK.  For this to
> > +make sense, the system should provide a consistent security policy to avoid
> > +arbitrary code execution e.g., by enforcing a write xor execute policy.
> > +
> > +When ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE`` is set, a process should never interpret
> > +interactive user commands (e.g. scripts).  However, if such commands are passed
> > +through a file descriptor (e.g. stdin), its content should be interpreted if a
> > +call to :manpage:`execveat(2)` with the related file descriptor and the
> > +``AT_EXECVE_CHECK`` flag succeed.
> > +
> > +For instance, script interpreters called with a script snippet as argument
> > +should always deny such execution if ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE`` is set.
> > +
> > +This secure bit may be set by user session managers, service managers,
> > +container runtimes, sandboxer tools...  Except for test environments, the
> > +related ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE_LOCKED`` bit should also be set.
> > +
> > +Here is the expected behavior for a script interpreter according to combination
> > +of any exec securebits:
> > +
> > +1. ``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE=0`` and ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE=0``
> > +
> > +   Always interpret scripts, and allow arbitrary user commands (default).
> > +
> > +   No threat, everyone and everything is trusted, but we can get ahead of
> > +   potential issues thanks to the call to :manpage:`execveat(2)` with
> > +   ``AT_EXECVE_CHECK`` which should always be performed but ignored by the
> > +   script interpreter.  Indeed, this check is still important to enable systems
> > +   administrators to verify requests (e.g. with audit) and prepare for
> > +   migration to a secure mode.
> > +
> > +2. ``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE=1`` and ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE=0``
> > +
> > +   Deny script interpretation if they are not executable, but allow
> > +   arbitrary user commands.
> > +
> > +   The threat is (potential) malicious scripts run by trusted (and not fooled)
> > +   users.  That can protect against unintended script executions (e.g. ``sh
> > +   /tmp/*.sh``).  This makes sense for (semi-restricted) user sessions.
> > +
> > +3. ``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE=0`` and ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE=1``
> > +
> > +   Always interpret scripts, but deny arbitrary user commands.
> > +
> > +   This use case may be useful for secure services (i.e. without interactive
> > +   user session) where scripts' integrity is verified (e.g.  with IMA/EVM or
> > +   dm-verity/IPE) but where access rights might not be ready yet.  Indeed,
> > +   arbitrary interactive commands would be much more difficult to check.
> > +
> > +4. ``SECBIT_EXEC_RESTRICT_FILE=1`` and ``SECBIT_EXEC_DENY_INTERACTIVE=1``
> > +
> > +   Deny script interpretation if they are not executable, and also deny
> > +   any arbitrary user commands.
> > +
> > +   The threat is malicious scripts run by untrusted users (but trusted code).
> > +   This makes sense for system services that may only execute trusted scripts.
> > +
> > +.. Links
> > +.. _samples/check-exec/inc.c:
> > +   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/samples/check-exec/inc.c
>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Xu < jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>